"I'm arguing this civil right applies to gay and straight alike. And to deny someone a basic civil right is to persecute them.
I'm pretty sure everyone understands what you are arguing. However, your argument doesn't stand up, so far, to logic. If it is a basic civil right to man, as the Supreme court defines it then OK, we can use their context.
"You see, allowing the races to intermarry would be offensive to some religious people who believed it God's will that races should not."
One mistake that religiophobes make is in taking the position of some religious people and applying it to all or as a standard that all are bound to for the purposes of debate. Not all religious people feel this way, in fact, it is a minority of religious people who think this way.
Inter racial marriages are between a man and a woman and that is relevant to the context of your argument.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"
Up until now we have agreed this to be a basic civil right in the context of a man and a woman getting married. Your argument suggests no such classification is specifically stated, so no such classification can allow limitations for other entities desiring to be legally married. However, there are many limitations that were not specifically stated that are assumed. A father and daughter, a ten year old girl and a chimpanzee, etc.
You are bringing religion into it and Brumar doesn't seem to mind arguing the religious perspective but I don't see how it changes anything. You have to define marriage, and as with any definition it limits those things or entities that don't fit within the definition. If you define it to include gays but not chimpanzees you have denied the zoophiliacs from this basic civil right you are claiming. The allegation of persecution, in any event, does not fly.
Persecution is a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate a people because of their religion, race, or beliefs.
dictionary.reference.com |
